Originally posted by falconeye
math is the highest art form ever created by mankind. It is pure language. Except you don't consider literature an art.
of course, literature is hard to digest if you never learned the language ...
Actually mathematics and language are forms of notation that allow the physical universe to be described quantitatively and qualitatively in a way thats communicable.
I actually think one is useless without the other.
The art however is in how well you express yourself, either way
But there is also a problem of "preaching to the choir". Some people can read musical notation and hear the music in their heads, like most of us can visualise the characters in a novel. But most of us prefer to hear the orchestra play music at the end of the day. With maths, most feel more comfortable with concrete examples of the outcomes.
To take one part of the image processing equation in isolation may indeed lead to a correct observation, but out of context its not very useful to a non-engineer. It would help most people to illustrate the effect using real life samples and examples that show its relevance in real life (subjective) photography in a way normal people can understand (and can replicated).
Otherwise some people inevitably read more into this than exists and make a big deal out of it, even the OP in Oleg's case. A classic case of over analysis if ever I saw one.
Similarly it would actually be more constructive for the engineering talent that abounds on the forum to suggest the best ways of minimising its effects in PP.
If we could only source some decent RAW comparison images it would be interesting to compare all the cameras in question using different RAW converters to see if subjectively the results cannot be made comparable.